Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] What if an ACK frame doesn't fit in a packet (#3312)

Martin Thomson <> Thu, 02 January 2020 03:03 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D5CB812004C for <>; Wed, 1 Jan 2020 19:03:52 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.596
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.596 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_28=1.404, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Cn7GvtDMX6_W for <>; Wed, 1 Jan 2020 19:03:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7F89A120046 for <>; Wed, 1 Jan 2020 19:03:51 -0800 (PST)
Date: Wed, 01 Jan 2020 19:03:50 -0800
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=pf2014; t=1577934230; bh=zA5hM5nBDZorZf81DDoUc9GuPQtlLwdflkoxiZOiRic=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=H0oPBm/48GpwD4yIOSd1oXBYD8GFYUJT8CVcufZ2jzJn2YR9C6ptJBXKQUxuMYKRm JQwSnMTV2k35+ot4F7ccfIB/WyRpKUP7DyM0AuvzHsNlBOyFr8at9KLOfxEgKZIMv/ CdIhM/Ixlv0ZWlQm0CiZPF4ox+qeUJcPmIKjkCxk=
From: Martin Thomson <>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
Cc: Subscribed <>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3312/review/>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] What if an ACK frame doesn't fit in a packet (#3312)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5e0d5d96cd4fd_7eb23fac69acd960699a9"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: martinthomson
X-GitHub-Recipient: quic-issues
X-GitHub-Reason: subscribed
X-Auto-Response-Suppress: All
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
List-Id: Notification list for GitHub issues related to the QUIC WG <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 02 Jan 2020 03:03:53 -0000

martinthomson commented on this pull request.

Seems fine.

> @@ -3182,7 +3182,10 @@ caused by losing previously sent ACK frames, at the cost of larger ACK frames.
 ACK frames SHOULD always acknowledge the most recently received packets, and the
 more out-of-order the packets are, the more important it is to send an updated
 ACK frame quickly, to prevent the peer from declaring a packet as lost and
-spuriously retransmitting the frames it contains.
+spuriously retransmitting the frames it contains.  It's expected the ACK frame
+will be much smaller than a QUIC packet.  However, if the entire ACK frame
+does not fit into a single QUIC packet, older ranges with the smallest packet

The tautology here might be fixed with:

does not fit into a single QUIC packet, older ranges (that is, those with 
the smallest packet numbers) SHOULD be omitted.

You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: